This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)
concerning your claims for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et
seq. (EEOICPA or the Act). For the reasons stated below, your claims for
benefits are hereby accepted in part and denied in part.

STATEMENT OF
THE CASE

On September 10, 2004, the district office issued a
recommended decision concluding that [Spouse] had received an award as
the widow of the [Employee] under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act. [Employee] and [Spouse] were married on June 9, 1955. The death certificate of record establishes that [Employee] died on March 18, 1990. Another death certificate of record establishes that [Spouse], the
employee’s wife, died on October 15, 2001. Subsequently, nine survivors filed
claims for benefits as follows:

On July 1, 2002,[Claimant 1] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits
under EEOICPA, as a surviving child. She provided a copy of her adoption
papers from the Navajo Nation, verifying that the employee and his widow
adopted her on July 15, 1969. [Claimant 1] also provided a copy of her
marriage certificate to support her name change.

On July 12, 2002, [Claimant 2] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 2] provided a copy of his birth
certificate which listed the employee as his father.

On July 19, 2002, [Claimant 3] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 3] provided a copy of her
adoption papers from the Navajo Nation, verifying that the employee and his
widow adopted her on July 15, 1969. She provided a copy of her marriage
certificate to support her name change.

On January 21, 2003, [Claimant 4] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. At the time [Spouse], the widow, married
the employee, [Claimant 4] was 30 years old. Based on documents in the
file, [Claimant 4] is the daughter of [Spouse] and [Claimant
4’s Natural Father].

On January 22, 2003, [Claimant 5] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 5] provided a copy of her birth
certificate which listed [Spouse] as her mother and [Claimant 5’s
Natural Father] as her father. When [Spouse] married the employee, [Claimant
5] was a minor child and resided in the home of [Spouse] and [Employee].

On January 23, 2003, [Claimant 6] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 6] provided a copy of her birth
certificate which listed [Spouse] as her mother and [Claimant 6’s
Natural Father] as her father. At the time [Spouse] married the
employee [Claimant 6] was 28 years old.

On January 24, 2003, [Claimant 7] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 7] provided a copy of her
birth certificate which listed [Employee] as her mother and [Claimant
7’s Natural Father] as her father. When [Spouse] married the
employee, [Claimant 7] was a minor childand lived in the home of [Spouse] and [Employee].

On January 31, 2003, [Claimant 8] filed Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 8] provided a copy of her
marriage certificate which verified that she was married in August 1949, prior
to her mother’s marriage to the employee.

On February 24, 2004, [Claimant 9] filed form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under
EEOICPA as a surviving child. [Claimant 9] provided a certified copy of
a clinical record from Northern Navajo Medical Center Indian Health Services,
Shiprock Service Unit, in Shiprock, New Mexico, certifying that her name was [Claimant
9] and that she had previously used [Claimant 9’s Former Name] and [Claimant
9’s Former Name]. The clinic record shows [Employee] as her father,[Claimant 9’s Step-father’s Name] as her step-father and that she was
legally adopted by her uncle [Claimant 9’s Adoptive Father’s Name].

On August 3, 2004, the district office requested that [Claimant 9] provide
verification of either a final decree of adoption or a final judgment of
adoption. The district office informed [Claimant 9] that the evidence
submitted supports that she was legally adopted by [Claimant 9’s Adoptive
Father’s Name]. Evidence to show that she was not legally adopted by [Claimant
9’s Adoptive Father’s Name] would need to be submitted, for her to be an
eligible survivor on [Employee]’s record. She was provided 30 days to
submit this evidence. No evidence was submitted.

On September 10, 2004, the district office issued a recommended decision recommending that [Claimant
1], [Claimant 2], [Claimant 3], [Claimant 5], and [Claimant
7] were eligible surviving children of [Employee] and that [Claimant
4], [Claimant 6], [Claimant 8], and [Claimant 9] did
not establish that they were eligible surviving children of the employee.

[Claimant
1], [Claimant 2], [Claimant 3], [Claimant 5], and [Claimant
7] have provided evidence to establish they are surviving children or have
had step-children relationships with the employee, and therefore as his
survivors, are entitled to additional compensation in the amount of $50,000.00,
to be divided equally pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7384u(a). [Claimant 1], [Claimant
2], [Claimant 3], [Claimant 5], and [Claimant 7] are
each entitled to $10,000. [Claimant 4], [Claimant 6], [Claimant
8], and [Claimant 9] are not entitled to compensation because they
have not established that they are an eligible survivor.

On the
dates listed below, the Final Adjudication Branch received written notification
that you waive any and all objections to the recommended decision:

[Claimant 1] September 21, 2004

[Claimant 2] September 22, 2004

[Claimant 3] September 20, 2004

[Claimant 5] September 21, 2004

[Claimant 7] September 17, 2004

Pursuant to the regulations implementing the EEOICPA, a
claimant has 60 days from the date of issuance of the recommended decision to
raise objections to that decision to the Final Adjudication Branch. 20 C.F.R. §
30.310(a). If an objection is not raised during the 60-day period, the Final
Adjudication Branch will consider any and all evidence submitted to the record and
issue a final decision affirming the district office’s recommended decision.
20 C.F.R. § 30.316(a). No objections were raised nor waivers received from [Claimant
4], [Claimant 6], [Claimant 8], and [Claimant 9].

After considering the record of
the claim forwarded by the district office, the Final Adjudication Branch makes
the following:

FINDINGS OF
FACT

On September 10, 2004, the district office issued a
recommended decision concludingthat [Spouse] had received
an award as the widow of the [Employee] under section 5 of the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.[Employee] and [Spouse]
were married on June 9, 1955. The record establishes that [Employee]
died on March 18, 1990. The record establishes that [Spouse], the
employee’s wife, died on October 15, 2001. Subsequently, [Claimant 1],
[Claimant 2], [Claimant 3], [Claimant 4], [Claimant
5], [Claimant 6], [Claimant 7], [Claimant 8], and
[Claimant 9] filed claims for benefits

[Claimant 1], [Claimant 2], [Claimant 3],
[Claimant 5], and [Claimant 7] have provided evidence to
establish they are surviving children or have had step-children
relationships with the employee.

[Claimant
4], [Claimant 6], [Claimant 8], and [Claimant 9] are
not entitled to compensation because they have not established that they are
eligible survivors of the employee.

In
cases involving a stepchild who was an adult at the time of marriage,
supportive evidence may consist of documentation showing that the stepchild was
the primary contact in medical dealings with the deceased employee, the
stepchild provided financial support for the deceased employee, and/or had the
deceased employee living with him/her, etc. In addition, evidence consisting
of medical reports, letters from the physician, receipts showing that the
stepchild purchased medical equipment, supplies or medicine for the employee
may be helpful. Also, evidence such as copies of insurance policies, wills,
photographs (i.e., attendance in the stepchild’s wedding as the father
or mother), and newspaper articles (i.e., obituary) may be considered.
No evidence has been submitted to support this type of relationship with [Claimant
4], [Claimant 6], or [Claimant 8] and the employee.

Based on the above noted findings
of fact in this claim, the Final Adjudication Branch hereby also makes the
following:

CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW

Per Chapter 2-200 (September 2004) of the Federal (EEOICPA)
Procedure Manual, a stepchild is considered a child if he or she lived with the employee in a regular parent-child relationship. [Claimant 1], [Claimant
2], [Claimant 3], [Claimant 5], and [Claimant 7] have
established they lived with the employee in a regular child/step-child relationship
with [Employee] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7384u(e)(1)(B) of the EEOICPA
and are entitled to compensation in the amount of $10,000.00 each.

[Claimant 9] has established that she was adopted
by [Claimant 9’s Adoptive Father’s Name] and pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §
1911 of the Indian Child Welfare Laws, Indian tribes have exclusive
jurisdiction over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who
resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where
jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law.
Pursuant to the Navajo Nation Code, 9 NNC § 611 (1960), the natural parents of
the adoptive child, except a natural parent who is also an adoptive parent or
the spouse of an adoptive parent, shall be relieved of all parental
responsibilities for such child or to his property by descent or distribution
or otherwise.

Accordingly, an adopted Navajo child may claim EEOICPA
benefits only as a survivor of her adopted father, not her natural father.
Please note that in order to terminate parental rights under Navajo law there
must be a “final decree of adoption” – not just a “final judgment of adoption.”
Therefore [Claimant 9] is not an eligible surviving child of the
employee.

[Claimant 4], [Claimant 6], and [Claimant
8] are not considered eligible surviving children of [Employee],
because they did not establish a relationship pursuant to Chapter 2-200
(September 2004) of the Federal (EEOICPA) Procedure Manual and 42 U.S.C. §
7384s(e)(3)(B) and are not entitled to compensation.

The undersigned has reviewed the record and the recommended
decision issued by the district office on September 10, 2004, and finds that your claims are in accordance with the facts and the law in this case. It
is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch that your claims are accepted
in part and denied in part.